ASSISTANT ENGINEER CHENGALPATTU Vs. SEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.19172/2008 is filed by the department to quash the award dated 19.9.2003 made in I.D. No.156 of 1990 on the file of the Labour Court, Cuddalore. W.P.No.20830/2008 is filed by the department to quash the exparte award dated 12.09.2002 made in ID.No.154/1999 and the order dated 19.09.2003 made in IA.Nos.153 and 393/2003 in ID.No.154/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the first respondent herein filed claim petitions dated 23.04.1999 under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act before the Labour Officer at Cuddalore stating that they were appointed as Gang Coolies in March 1994 and after continuous employment under the Assistant Engineer of Highways (NH 45), Section Office, Tindivanam, they were retrenched on 12.03.1999 without valid notice and reason and they were not paid with any retrenchment compensation. THE Labour Officer, Cuddalore by issuing notice dated 13.05.1999 had called for a conciliation meeting between the parties. Though, the Assistant Engineer, Highways, first petitioner herein filed a reply dated 21.05.1999 denying the averments made by the first respondent that the claimants had not worked for 480 days continuously, the said conciliation had ended in failure as per Lr.No.3910/P2/2001, dated 12.02.2011 of the Labour Officer, Cuddalore.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the application for setting aside the exparte award was filed only with a delay of 25 days, the 2nd respondent/Labour Court has proceeded on the presumption that there was a delay of 40 days. If proper chance is given to the petitioner, they could have moved suitable petition mentioning the proper reason for condoning the delay. As no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, the exparte order passed by the Labour Court, which is working against the interest of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Secondly, when the respondents/claimants had worked only for 28 days on daily wages without even receiving any sufficient document supporting the case of the petitioner that they worked for 240 days, the Labour Court erroneously allowed the claim petitions. This can be seen from the subsequent order passed by the same Labour Court dismissing the CP.Nos.13 of 2006 and 15 of 2006 filed under Section 23(c)(2) of the I.D. Act, on 24.10.2007, on this basis prayed for setting aside the same